Quidpay Finance Ltd v Settlego Solutions Ltd (t/a OpenPayd) [2026] EWHC 1477 (Ch) (18 June 2026)

The judgment handed down over the Summer in the matter of Quidpay Finance v Settlego Solutions is a useful decision regarding how digital asset companies are entitled to handle customer funds when a commercial contract ends and touching on the way in which the electronic money regime operates in the context of reserve accounts.

Background

OpenPayd provided online payment company QuidPay with electronic money “e-money” which it in turn (indirectly) provided to its own customers. The dispute arose following a suspected multi-million euro fraud alert involving virtual IBANs ascribed to two of QuidPay’s end customers (in relation to which QuidPay itself was not said to have been implicated). OpenPayd first froze QuidPay’s e-money accounts, and then subsequently informed QuidPay that it was holding a sum equivalent to over 10.6 million Euros as a reserve, citing the ongoing fraud investigation and potential liabilities of OpenPayd to a sister company in Malta. QuidPay terminated the commercial agreement with OpenPayd and sought the release of the monies said to be owed to it in accordance with the underlying agreement.

Ruling

Judge Lance Ashworth KC ruled in favour of QuidPay stating that the contractual provisions did not give OpenPayd the right to hold the funds in reserve after termination of the contract even though the fraud investigation was ongoing. Whilst payment providers often require robust protection against liabilities, these rights must be explicitly stated. This was not the case in this instance where the contract lacked the necessary language to extend the retention of funds post-contractual termination.  The Judge rejected OpenPayd’s arguments that QuidPay’s rights in relation to the reserved funds (including the right to have those funds safeguarded pursuant to the Electronic Money Regulations 2011) had effectively been extinguished as a result of the way in which OpenPayd created the reserve, finding that OpenPayd was not contractually entitled to do as it did (not least due to the operation of regulation 40 of the Electronic Money Regulations 2011).

Implications

This judgment serves as an important warning to fintech companies, digital platforms, and e-money institutions. It underscores that standard reserve account clauses will not automatically protect providers against post-termination exposure unless the contract explicitly dictates that reserve rights survive termination.  Further, it emphasises that if an e-money provider wishes fundamentally to change the nature of its customers’ rights in relation to the e-money it provides to them, it must be able to point to clear contractual provisions entitling it to do so and to be able to square those provisions with the requirements of the regulatory regime.

To read the full judgment, please click here.

Hugh Miall KC and Ryan Hocking were instructed by Lewis Silkin LLP for the Claimant.